Birds of a feather flock to better solutions together

Larger flocks of birds are more likely to solve problems that stand between …

Humans get a lot of benefits from working and living in groups, one of which is better collective problem solving. As long as a group isn't too large, humans tend to solve problems faster and more efficiently as a group than as individuals. There have been some experiments that suggest other animals may benefit in a similar manner, but this work has generally been performed in an artificial environment. Now, researchers have found evidence that larger flocks of birds are better at tackling challenges in the wild.

The researchers looked at an area outside of Oxford where all of the local great and blue tits have been banded with RFID systems. They set up a feeding system next to an RFID reader that required the birds to consecutively pull two different levers in order to release a bunch of sunflower seeds. The RFID reader ensured that the researchers knew how many and which birds were around when seeds were released.

Once the flock size went above about a dozen birds, the rate of problem solving shot way up. Some of this was a result of experience—the larger the flock, the greater the possibility that one of the birds had been in a flock that had obtained a meal in the past. Birds solved the problem better when the feeder was located closer to shelter, so the authors think that numbers provide a bit of safety and a greater probability of spotting predators.

But these factors only accounted for a portion of the total benefit from a flock; the authors' statistical analysis suggests that there's a large benefit from having random individuals present. Problem solving skills may just not be evenly distributed in the bird world, so a larger flock raised the probability that one of its members was just better at experimenting with levers.

Sadly, there will be individuals who think this can be extrapolated to humans (specifically corporations), but human group dynamic is much different than birds. There is the education factor (birds do not build upon the knowledge of previous generations) and the individual initiative factor. Humans in groups tend to dictate what actions are taken via committee. If a bird wants to try to get food, the bird tries to get the food. It doesn't discuss the idea and only if deemed of enough merit is it attempted.

Kinda like "an infinite number of monkeys"... even if none have ever seen the problem solved before, more actors trying random solutions will likely find a solution faster, I'd think. Also, more actors with various viewpoints may have a larger set of random actions to try.

Sadly, there will be individuals who think this can be extrapolated to humans (specifically corporations), but human group dynamic is much different than birds. There is the education factor (birds do not build upon the knowledge of previous generations) and the individual initiative factor. Humans in groups tend to dictate what actions are taken via committee. If a bird wants to try to get food, the bird tries to get the food. It doesn't discuss the idea and only if deemed of enough merit is it attempted.

I think the difference is that if the bird do not find food, the bird dies. But with corporations, if the individual fails the expenses during that time comes out of the corporations account.

There is the education factor (birds do not build upon the knowledge of previous generations) and the individual initiative factor.

And we know this how? There are studies that have demonstrated adaptive tool use by corvids and ISTR that this knowledge was passed to young (presumably via demonstration). That sounds like education to me.

You don't need to extrapolate this study to humans, there are many studies that demonstrate mimicry and use of tools (through creative playing) with children already. I can't see the relationship with corporations though.The difference with flocks of humans is that they fail at spotting predators, when they send children to Catholic churches and schools...

Without reading the DOI, I'm curious if they address the possibility of incidental manipulation of the levers, instead of systematically using them to get seeds?

If you have more birds hopping around, the likelyhood that two will hit the lever necessarily increased. And as you get more birds, they shift positions more often (you can see this watching birds in a tree or on a wire), and are therefore more likely to mess with the lever rather than getting used to it.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, although I have to say it fits more closely with corporate behavior...

The difference with flocks of humans is that they fail at spotting predators, when they send children to Catholic churches and schools...

Wow - just had to get in a dig at a particular faith community did you? While you are at it why not a dig at say, rec league sports, public schools, or every other faith based or communal organization that serves youth. Clearly all of them are a jungle where predators lurk.

Kinda like "an infinite number of monkeys"... even if none have ever seen the problem solved before, more actors trying random solutions will likely find a solution faster, I'd think. Also, more actors with various viewpoints may have a larger set of random actions to try.

While randomness can certainly explain part of it, I don't believe it accounts for all of the findings. If I understand the article correctly, when it says "Once the flock size went above about a dozen birds, the rate of problem solving shot way up", it suggests the chance of success is not a simple combinatoric function in the number of birds. There's something about having a critical number of birds that made finding the solution much easier.

I am unsure of your point. Individualism is not in conflict with voluntary cooperative behavior.

While true in theory, this seems to rarely play out in real life.

If I look around my locale I see volunteer fire departments, community churches, rec league sports leagues, Girl Scout troops, Boy Scout troops, PTA's, service clubs, etc. All examples of real life individuals coming together in voluntary cooperatives. I could name many, many more.

I am unsure of your point. Individualism is not in conflict with voluntary cooperative behavior.

While true in theory, this seems to rarely play out in real life.

If I look around my locale I see volunteer fire departments, community churches, rec league sports leagues, Girl Scout troops, Boy Scout troops, PTA's, service clubs, etc. All examples of real life individuals coming together in voluntary cooperatives. I could name many, many more.

um, I haven't read the actual study (so don't all jump down my throat at once) but surely if the only qualifying factor is to pull two levers at once, then the chance of this happening randomly is increases with the number of birds involved?

... to the point where you can't really separate chance occurrence and actual experienced input from a small number of the participants?

I am unsure of your point. Individualism is not in conflict with voluntary cooperative behavior.

While true in theory, this seems to rarely play out in real life.

If I look around my locale I see volunteer fire departments, community churches, rec league sports leagues, Girl Scout troops, Boy Scout troops, PTA's, service clubs, etc. All examples of real life individuals coming together in voluntary cooperatives. I could name many, many more.

I think that what hobgoblin was getting at is the ideology of individualism is popular, in which it's argued that collective decision making is inferior to individual decision making -- as in the common quip that something ugly must have been "designed by committee."

Of course voluntary cooperative behavior is common in your locale. Voluntary cooperative behavior is the basis of human existence. The problem with individualism is an ideological problem: impressive achievements are credited to single individuals, who may or may not have played a leading role, rather than to the larger community that actually achieved them.